UPDATES: The Tyler Robinson Case

本站添加: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]Andrew, welcome back to the show.

[00:00:02]>> Hey, thank you so much for having me back.

[00:00:04]>> Yeah, you know, I have to I have to give you a little I have to chide you just a little bit. Uh because last time we had you on, you let us know that your prediction was that the trial was not going to happen until uh early 2028. I saw you clip that and were making fun of our reaction. I think the whole world was groaning along with us, I would like to say, because it's uh sitting in this seat, I will tell you that is not what you want to hear. Uh I know >> you know it's just the whole the wheels of justice move in my opinion almost a little bit too slow.

[00:00:35]>> Uh but that's where we're at and hopefully you are wrong and we get the under on that not the over. Um all right. So on Friday we had a uh a hearing that was basically to decide the issue of cameras in the courtroom as well as the defense's request for an extension before the I guess preliminary hearing, evidentiary hearing. Um I've heard it referred to both ways. uh tell us what did we learn? Obviously, there was a ruling on the cameras that they were the judge uh graph was going to deny their request, but it's more complicated than that.

[00:01:08]>> Yeah, it's a little bit more nuanced than just the cameras are in or the cameras are out. What had happened with this motion was that the defense was seeking a categorical ban on cameras in the courtroom essentially for the rest of the case. And uh that's in a bit of a conflict with with Utah law which has some of the most camera favorable rules anywhere in the country. Uh and so they have a number of procedures and requirements uh that you have to go through to get a camera in the courtroom. Uh but once assuming you follow those procedures uh they are extremely permissive and there's a presumption that they will allow it to happen. Uh so what has happened is that judge graph denied the defense motion for a categorical ban. and he said that is not consistent with what Utah law provides. However, because Utah law in its own procedure already allows for there to be objections or um concerns about certain factors the judges to consider such as the defendants's effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial. Uh that the defense can still continue to raise those issues. they're just going to have to do it on a hearing by hearing basis and not as a general uh overarching rule that that cameras would not be allowed.

[00:02:22]>> So there was a it's like a 14 week or 14 day advance, right? So if I am, let's say I'm CBS News or any outlet, let me get centered up here.

[00:02:32]>> I get I have to present my request 14 days in advance and then there is an opportunity for the defense to basically object. And I saw a clip of yours basically saying the defense is now almost obligated to object to every single request for a media credential to this hearing. Is am I reading that right? They may be if this is an issue that they are uh intending to preserve for future review down the road. Uh which is kind of classic for defense lawyers to be doing to be thinking you know through the appeal through the postconviction process and so forth.

[00:03:10]they have framed this issue as one of a federal constitutional magnitude. And so there are a lot of procedural hurdles that go along with uh potentially raising something like that in a federal court a long time down the road. And one of them is that you have to uh you have to exhaust uh your remedies in the trial court and you have to fully preserve the issue. So there is, I think, a potential argument that a prosecutor on the other side would be able to make uh that if they did not object to cameras at any specific hearing, uh that the defense has essentially waved any kind of objection to cameras being in the courtroom for that at least for that particular proceeding. Uh so I I do think it puts a little bit of an onus on them. Uh if their objective is to have an opportunity for a future appellet court to to look at whether cameras in general as a big picture specific to this case, whatever are a problem with a with a fair trial. Uh they are kind of stuck now with having to do a little bit of extra work uh to make sure that they have not waved that. Right.

[00:04:19]>> Yeah. They've just made more work for themselves essentially. And it one of the things I've learned from your commentary, Andrea, is just how much of these motions, these hearings, uh, and you call papering the record, uh, are really done with the express intent of future appeals essentially because then it will be appealed. I if you make the presumption that this would end in a uh guilty verdict uh because of the evidence that you already are aware exists against Tyler Robinson, then you're going to say, "Well, we're going to then appeal it at the state level."

[00:04:52]And then eventually the federal courts are going to get involved on a follow-up appeal. And it's it seems like so much of the of these chess moves that we're seeing play out where you're like, "What are they doing? What are they?" It's all playing down the line, the long game, assuming appeals. Is that fair?

[00:05:09]Absolutely. I mean, that's always going to be part of the the role of of defense council, particularly in a case like this, a death penalty case. Uh it's very consistent with the the strategies that these particular defense lawyers kind of traditionally employ uh in the cases that they work on. Uh, and it's just it's one of the aspects of being effective a as a defense attorney is having to think five years down the road, 10 years down the road, which I know now we're throwing out numbers you guys really don't want to hear. Uh, but that, you know, just is the unfortunate reality of of death penalty litigation.

[00:05:46]Uh there's many many steps to it and many pitfalls along the way. And so that is what they're being attuned to uh as they go through this trial process.

[00:05:55]>> One one real quick question. We have about a minute left in this segment, Andrea. So, what about like just the court live stream that's not connected to a CBS or a local affiliate or anything like that?

[00:06:07]>> Is that that's going to be permitted or or do we not know?

[00:06:12]>> Well, so when the court has these WebEx hearings uh like they had on Friday, uh where they are just digitally present in court, they're not all there in the courtroom. Uh typically, we have been able to uh view those and reream them.

[00:06:25]Uh and so the cameras in the courtroom is generally referring to a media agency from the outside bringing a camera in.

[00:06:33]Uh but if they are having live courtroom hearings, not clear to me if WebEx is is available uh or some kind of alternative camera feed of the court's own system that they might be able to uh rely on.

[00:06:47]>> Interesting. So, a little bit TBD on the mechanics of this, but we we know generally directionally, we're going to probably have video uh of the actual trial. That's kind of what I'm gathering. Okay. And here's what I here's what I love about Noble Gold is, you know, when people are going to buy precious metals, and we can talk about why they should and why they should consider as part of their portfolio, and we will, but you know, here's what I know. You are honest and trustworthy.

[00:07:16]You have integrity. people love doing business with your your company and you charge, you know, people don't realize this. There's a lot of shysters out there where like if you buy this much gold, they they mark it up a long long way and then you as in the audience that thought you were getting an investment vehicle, you got to you got gold's got to like double in value before you make your money back. That's not what happens at Noble Gold. You guys are like the industry leader as far as fairness on the pricing and uh that's how awesome you guys are.

[00:07:48]and reschedules the preliminary hearing for July 6th, July 7th, the afternoon of July 8th, July 9th, and July 10th, 2026 in order to protect the defendant's constitutional rights while minimizing unnecessary delay and preserving the fair, prompt, and impartial administration of justice. This is the order of the court.

[00:08:14]>> All right. So, we have uh just played that clip from Judge Graph announcing the delay of the preliminary hearing to July 6th through the 10th. Andrea, um what do you make of this type of delay?

[00:08:25]They were obviously asking for more time. He aired on the side of, you know, less than half of what they were asking for. What do you read into this?

[00:08:35]This is uh in many ways, I think, the judge's equivalent of what we were just talking about with the attorneys looking down the road for for future appeals and and so forth. Uh generally speaking, the defense can only appeal rulings that go against them. And so in cases where uh you you want to maybe just minimize unnecessary uh grounds to to potentially argue that that there was some time of some type of problem in the process. Uh you can just heer on the side of of granting the defense what they want. Uh and so in this particular case, I think this is Judge Graph playing it safe. Uh he cited the primarily the very large volume of discovery that has been produced in the case. Uh I I have to tell you just from my perspective that the numbers that we have been talking about in terms of the terabytes of information that have been handed over are pretty mind-boggling. And they kind of previewed this at the last hearing when uh the the defense had been arguing that they wanted more opportunity to investigate some of the the state's underlying uh DNA evidence and firearms evidence and so forth. Uh but the judge kind of cut them off and and uh asked them very specifically about just the extent to which they'd been able to review the discovery so far. Uh and all of the the attorneys in turn indicated no just given the volume they they haven't had time to review everything.

[00:10:03]So I think it's largely uh that that is driving uh this particular decision.

[00:10:08]That's why it was not the extended continuence that the defense was asking for. It's not for purposes of of greater investigation or expanding the purpose of the preliminary hearing. It's just to make sure they've had an opportunity to be familiar with what is going to be presented and where it fits into the discovery picture.

[00:10:28]>> So, I think if I remember right, the first time we had you on, Andrea, I think you predicted they wouldn't delay it. Does even this short continuence, does it adjust your expected timeline for the trial as a whole or do you think we'll probably end up on the same timeline as before, which was already unfortunately quite long?

[00:10:48]>> Yeah, you know, that's a very good question. Uh I I mean, in general, I would say it it gives us a little bit of insight into uh Judge Judge Graph's just perspective on on the case and the timelines. Uh so it may show a little bit more um lenience towards allowing the defense the time that they need to develop uh their their strategies in their case. Obviously when you're getting ready for trial, it's it's a different situation uh in terms of what you actually have to do to prepare uh than getting ready for this preliminary hearing. Uh so it may be an indication that he will uh allow them, you know, a greater opportunity to uh to pursue leads and uh like I mentioned last time, we already know there's going to be challenges to scientific evidence and so forth. And so it is possible that he may be more amendable to uh extending the the trial date further down the road.

[00:11:41]>> Yeah. Interesting. So I, you know, my basic gist of what happened was that, hey, I'm I'm grateful for the ruling on the cameras. Uh, that is something that Erica herself has, uh, through through her legal team expressed that she wants to happen. I agree with that. Charlie's assassination was extraordinarily public and it only follows that we would have a public trial where, you know, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I want to see everything. I think it's good for this entire conspiracy cottage industry that's emerged around this case for them to have to confront the actual evidence, the physical evidence. Uh, and I want everybody to see that and they get to see the the defense challenge it too.

[00:12:20]That's the system of laws we have and we want that. We we don't want uh this to be sort of jammed through the court system. We want the real process to play out and I think it'll be good for the country to have an education on the way that a capital case like this could work. Um, and and by the way, if if it had been reversed that there was no cameras and no with no delay, I would have been upset about that. And so, you know, okay, a little bit of an extension, five, six weeks, what whatever it is, uh, as opposed to 6 months, and we're getting that sort of definitive ruling that uh, the motion on cameras in the courtroom is being denied. I think that I I take this on the whole, I guess, is what I'm saying.

[00:12:55]You know, if I had to have it the other way, I wouldn't want it. So, I'll I'll I'll be sort of begrudgingly satisfied with with the judge's decisions here.

[00:13:03]It's kind of my my basic take.

[00:13:05]>> It's the end result that matters.

[00:13:07]>> Yeah, it is. Ultimately, um what are we looking for?

[00:13:09]>> Well, ultimately, I mean, I I Judge Graph has been extremely fair so far throughout this process. Uh in many ways, he's been uh kind of a blessing of a judge for this particular case. uh he's just demonstrated a lot of patience, a lot of understanding, and they're very much skills that a judge is going to need over a long run case like this.

[00:13:30]>> Yeah, I've I've seen that actually sort of across the board as people have been complimentary of this judge. And it does seem like, you know, from my perspective as somebody that uh do does believe that Tyler Robinson is guilty in this case and that I want to see justice served. I may not like some of the hoops that have to be jumped through to sort of protect this on appeal, but it does seem that he's being prudent. He's being fair and he's not giving a whole lot of opportunity. I mean, the appeals are going to happen. It's a capital case, right? This is how it's been explained to me. It's just going to happen.

[00:14:06]There's no way around it essentially with our system. And so on the whole you you you do you do take it as a blessing that he seems to be cognizant of the fact that this is going to be drawn out over years maybe a decade and he's playing that long game already right now to make sure everything's on the up and up and doesn't give them unnecessary opportunity for for getting this overturned on appeal. Um what are you looking for next? So I is there additional hearings that we need to keep our eye out on uh between now and uh July 6th? Yeah. So, the next hearing that is coming up, uh, since they had already set aside the the time, uh, the week of the week of May 18th, uh, to to do the preliminary hearing, uh, they went ahead and rescheduled some pending motions to be heard. They're actually going to be heard on the 19th uh, in the morning. And the the primary one that I think is going to be of interest is that the defense is asking to hold one of the prosecuting attorneys in contempt of the court's gag order. And this is based on a series of public statements that the the prosecutor made uh in response to headlines that were uh primarily in the Daily Mail, but uh you know got got proliferated through uh other other sources and so forth that uh indicated kind of misleadingly that uh the FBI was unable to match the bullet recovered from uh from Charlie's autopsy, the the bullet fragment to the the rifle uh that that um was associated with with Tyler Robinson. And so this had been reported as, you know, being exonerating and and no match and so forth, but that's not the that's not what that result means.

[00:15:44]And so the prosecutor had given some statements kind of clarifying here's what this result means. Uh and the defense is arguing that that that's a problem. They should not have been allowed to do